From: Jan Kasprzak <kas@fi.muni.cz>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: 3ware disk latency?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:13:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060710141315.GA5753@fi.muni.cz> (raw)
Hi all,
I have upgraded my machine from 3ware 7508 with 8x 250GB ATA drives
to 3ware 9550SX-8LP with 8x 500GB SATA-II drives, and I have found that
while the overall throughput of the disks is higher than before,
the latency - measured as the number of messages per time unit Qmail can
deliver - is far worse than before[1]. I have tried to use deadline
and cfq schedulers, but it made no visible speedup.
I have found the following two years old mail by Jens Axboe:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.0/1330.html
- the problem at that time was that the device had its internal
command queue deeper than the nr_requests of the block device layer,
so the I/O scheduler couldn't do anything. I was surprised
that the situation is still the same: I have
/sys/block/sd[a-h]/queue/nr_requests == 128, and
/sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:0b.0/0000:01:03.0/host0/target*/*/queue_depth == 254
I have verified that even on older 3ware drivers (7508) the situation
is the same. On the newer hardware it is probably more visible, because
the controller actually has bigger on-board cache (128MB vs. 32MB, I think).
I have tried to lower the /sys/devices/.../queue_depth to 4
and disable the NCQ, and the latency got a bit better. But it is still
nowhere near to where it was on the older HW.
Does anybody experience the similar latency problems with
3ware 95xx controllers? Thanks,
-Yenya
[1] the old configuration peaked at ~2k-4k messages per 5 minutes,
with 1k-2k messages/5min being pretty normal, while the new one
has maximum throughput of 1k messages per 5 minutes, but the normal
speed is much lower - some low hundreds messages per 5 minutes.
The new system runs about the same load as the previous one,
and the layout of disks is also the same (just the newer drives
are bigger, of course).
--
| Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <kas at {fi.muni.cz - work | yenya.net - private}> |
| GPG: ID 1024/D3498839 Fingerprint 0D99A7FB206605D7 8B35FCDE05B18A5E |
| http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/ Journal: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/blog/ |
> I will never go to meetings again because I think face to face meetings <
> are the biggest waste of time you can ever have. --Linus Torvalds <
next reply other threads:[~2006-07-10 14:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-10 14:13 Jan Kasprzak [this message]
2006-07-26 16:52 ` 3ware disk latency? dean gaudet
2006-07-26 20:37 ` Alan Cox
2006-07-26 21:53 ` dean gaudet
2006-07-26 22:07 ` adam radford
2006-07-26 22:10 ` Justin Piszcz
2006-07-26 22:48 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-07-26 22:20 ` adam radford
2006-07-27 3:00 ` dean gaudet
2006-07-27 13:42 ` Jan Kasprzak
2006-07-27 12:11 ` Jan Kasprzak
2006-07-27 18:30 ` David Lang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-08-02 11:48 Dieter Stüken
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060710141315.GA5753@fi.muni.cz \
--to=kas@fi.muni.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.